It is all the same to me
Yesterday I met a woman who knew my mom and knew that I had been in the Middle East. She asked me if it was less chaotic here than in Iraq. I said, "I suppose, but I really can't say what Iraq is like as I just got back from Lebanon." She replied that to 'laypeople' that whole area is all the same. I told her that is not what I wanted to hear. That really bothers me that people just brush off an entire region of the world as too complicated to understand, but at the same time I also understand that for normal, everyday Americans, what happens overseas really does not change their life that much. When US foreign policy changes we really do not notice it except when we declare war and soldiers have to leave. Aside from that, our lives are pretty much the same. It also shows that people here lack an understanding of the suffering that occurs in other parts of the world, and that leads to a lack of empathy. I once read a philosopher by the name of Edith Stein who claimed that the problem of empathy was the greatest problem of the 20th century. People have a hard time relating to other people, even recognizing that there are others out there who really suffer more.
Though I have not written in a few days I have been keeping up with events in Lebanon. I try not to watch TV as the reports are often little more than sound bites and I have a hard time looking at the bombs dropping. I read today in the New York Times that the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora believes that 900 Lebanese have died, 3,000 have been wounded, and more than a million have been displaced because of this conflict. Economic life has come to a halt and has effectively been set back by a couple of years - Lebanon had been banking on increased tourism, but after this debacle, who will want to return? All the while, the politicians fight over the terms of the ceasefire. Here again is a clear example of how politics really does matter - whether more people live or die depends upon what the politicians deem an appropriate ceasefire.
On a different note, I feel I should offer an explanation regarding a comment I made in the Billings Gazette, in case anyone who reads my blog also read that article. At the end of the article I called Israel a rouge nation. I was severely rebuffed for this by my fellow Montanans who I am sure are Middle East scholars with numerous experiences in the region, or anyplace else in the world for that matter. My guess is most of those people have never traveled outside of the United States on their own. In my opinion, I think a rouge nation can best be described as a country with few allies who acts contrary to the advise and wishes of the international community. Presently, Israel's only ally to support its actions in Gaza and Lebanon has been the good old USA, while the rest of the world has strongly condemned its military operations. The EU has even gone so far as to officially codemn the actions. I am not sure how else you could describe Israel right now. It definitely appears to want to play its own game by its own rules without considering how this might change the way its neighbors and allies regard it in the future. Just because it is a US ally does not mean it is beyond reproach.
Though I have not written in a few days I have been keeping up with events in Lebanon. I try not to watch TV as the reports are often little more than sound bites and I have a hard time looking at the bombs dropping. I read today in the New York Times that the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora believes that 900 Lebanese have died, 3,000 have been wounded, and more than a million have been displaced because of this conflict. Economic life has come to a halt and has effectively been set back by a couple of years - Lebanon had been banking on increased tourism, but after this debacle, who will want to return? All the while, the politicians fight over the terms of the ceasefire. Here again is a clear example of how politics really does matter - whether more people live or die depends upon what the politicians deem an appropriate ceasefire.
On a different note, I feel I should offer an explanation regarding a comment I made in the Billings Gazette, in case anyone who reads my blog also read that article. At the end of the article I called Israel a rouge nation. I was severely rebuffed for this by my fellow Montanans who I am sure are Middle East scholars with numerous experiences in the region, or anyplace else in the world for that matter. My guess is most of those people have never traveled outside of the United States on their own. In my opinion, I think a rouge nation can best be described as a country with few allies who acts contrary to the advise and wishes of the international community. Presently, Israel's only ally to support its actions in Gaza and Lebanon has been the good old USA, while the rest of the world has strongly condemned its military operations. The EU has even gone so far as to officially codemn the actions. I am not sure how else you could describe Israel right now. It definitely appears to want to play its own game by its own rules without considering how this might change the way its neighbors and allies regard it in the future. Just because it is a US ally does not mean it is beyond reproach.
posted by Courtney at 6:36 AM
1 Comments:
hmm, well yes and no. israel has the support of the overt USA and the UK, don't ignore Mr.Blair. it has the quiet support of eygpt and some other middle eastern nations who'd prefer hezbollah not grow in popular or poltical support. it's that whole sunni, sh'ite, shia craziness plus the fact that the more stable nations of the middle east do not want arms of hezzbollah opeing in their countries. or so npr tells me :)
Post a Comment
<< Home